When governments meet in Seattle, agriculture will be weighing on their minds. For many countries in the world, agriculture is the mainstay of their export economy (sometimes the only stay!) and the livelihood of the overwhelming majority of their people. For the 135 (and counting) countries that belong to the WTO, what gets decided in Seattle matters. The last time around, not much was delivered on agriculture for developing countries, nor for farmers in any country. Can this time be different?

The Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) came into force on January 1, 1995, with the other WTO agreements. Part of the agreement was a commitment to renew negotiations in early 2000. The Seattle Ministerial will launch these new negotiations on agriculture.

The AoA has two objectives that, so long as we get to define them, many NGOs support. The first is to remove "market distortions," which for us means break monopolies and oligopolies, ban patents on living organisms, build in differential treatment for poorer countries, and leave each country to decide its food and agriculture priorities, including the importance it wants to place on exports in its agricultural economy.

The second is the promotion of food security, which is mentioned in the agreement at the outset as an important "non-trade concern" but not addressed by the existing provisions. Those working to promote food security in the world know that food security is not about global food supply levels. It is about farmers, above all women, who put food on the table for their families. It is also about protecting indigenous cultures and biodiversity. It is about employment and having the means to secure food. It is certainly not about dependence on food aid, and it should not be dependent on world commodity prices either.

The first need—and this is an obligation under the existing AoA—is to review the implementation experience four years into the WTO. What happened? This should be an exercise for us, we who eat, and for those who grow food. It is also an obligation of governments that are asking us to accept more deregulation in agriculture as the means to achieve the two goals mentioned above. So far, farm organizations, non-profit researchers, even multilateral organizations, are very critical of the existing rules and want to see changes. We do not need more of the same. Here are a few things that either need to be put on the agenda, or strengthened:

1. Prohibit the sale of agricultural products in world markets at less than cost of production.

2. Affirm the principle of special and differential treatment by allowing developing countries flexibility in managing their domestic agriculture and their trade policy.

3. Affirm the importance of other parts of the multilateral system, eg. the Convention on Biological Diversity is the appropriate multilateral forum to address the use and exchange of biotechnology.

4. Ensure trade rules that allow domestic farm support programs that support small farmers, sustainable agriculture and safely produced healthy food.

5. Regulate the handful of companies that overwhelmingly dominate world (and sometimes local) trade in food to avoid the abuses and market distortions created by oligopolistic power.